Recently, the civil ruling (2022) Zhe 02 Zheng Bao No. 11, filed by the applicant's intelligent technology company on behalf of the applicant against the respondent's trade (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. and a technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. on the application for pre litigation behavior preservation (hereinafter referred to as the injunction), was delivered and took effect. The injunction is based on the invention patent applied by the applicant in 2020, and covers the four products produced and sold by the respondent.

　　Background of the case

　　The applicant of this ban is the first enterprise in the manufacturing and sales of floor washing machines in China; The respondent claimed that the sales volume of floor washing machines in 2022 was hundreds of millions, and the third-party data showed that the industry ranked second.

　　The applicant believes that the accused infringing products produced and sold by the respondent infringed his invention patent right, but now it is just the time when the "Double 11" and "Double 12" of the E-commerce Spring Festival are coming. If the general civil tort litigation is adopted, the applicant cannot obtain results in the golden time of sales, and unfair competition is caused by the cost difference caused by R&D investment and other factors, It will further affect consumers' awareness of the origin of this product and their consumption habits, and ultimately cause irreparable losses to the applicant. For this reason, Lonyuan team suggested to apply for a pre litigation injunction.

　　Brief description of practical process

　　After being entrusted by the patentee, our company filed an application for preservation of pre litigation behavior to the court for the respondent's manufacture and consumption of the alleged infringing products.

　　After evaluation, planning, evidence collection, analysis, case filing and two hearings, the respondent was finally forced to make a commitment to the court to stop the production and sales of the four products involved in the case, as well as the products that are identical to the technical solutions of the products involved, from October 30, 2022, so that the applicant would still be constrained to change only the product model identification without changing the actual technology of the alleged infringing products, The two Respondents expressly promised to stop the sale of the products involved in the case in the official proprietary stores of online channels.

　　Court ruling

　　The court stated in the ruling that "the two parties were informed in the hearing that the above-mentioned voluntary commitments of the respondent * * Tianjin Company and * * Suzhou Company in the lawsuit of this case are legally binding", "If the Court recognizes the commitment and judges that it can eliminate the urgency of the preservation of acts based on these factors, the two applicants intentionally violate the commitment after the event. If they are determined to be acts impeding civil litigation, they shall bear the corresponding legal liability. The two defendants should consciously fulfill the commitment, and other parties can supervise the performance of the commitment."

　　Case Analysis

　　In view of the fact that the respondent has made a commitment to the court to stop production and sales, so the injunction has lost its urgency, so the court ruled to reject the injunction application. However, if the respondent has truly fulfilled the commitment, the client will naturally achieve the goal. The losses caused by the respondent's suspected infringement can also be compensated through the general patent civil infringement litigation.

　　In the process of patent protection, timeliness is one of the factors that often perplex the patentee and agent. Although the case did not obtain a direct injunction, it exploringly forced the respondent to make a commitment to ban production and sales, realizing the legal effect similar to the injunction. And even if the injunction is made and the respondent promises to the court to perform, it needs to be supervised and implemented, and the practical work that the corresponding applicant needs to carry out in the later period of its violation of the injunction or commitment is basically the same.

　　It should be noted that this treatment method also eliminates the premise that the applicant is required to provide guarantee for normal injunction, thus avoiding the result of compensation that may result from invalid patent right or non infringement of court judgment in the later period, which is beneficial to the patentee.

　　Finally, it needs to be emphasized that with the gradual establishment and improvement of the social credit system, if the respondent violates its commitment to the court, its credit will be damaged, which will certainly become a blot on its business, and will have an impact on its financing, government policy enjoyment and other aspects in the long run.